문재앙정부 2월 5일부터 발의된 악법 총정리.. 전부 꽃배달 가자~!!! 이것이길이다 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11322650050 ​ 선거를 빌미로 조선시대처럼 여성을 천하게 능력과가능성 무시하는 악법 발의 - (2월5일까지) http://pal.assembly.go.kr/law/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_I2M0R1T1E0O2Y1D4K1H5N4W5C4M3A1​ ​여러분!! 백신 강제접종 국민 마루타 악법 - (2월5일까지) https://pal.assembly.go.kr/law/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_C2D1G0D1W1R9V1Y1K2Z6B2K9Z9K0A4​ 여러분! 문재인정부가! 6.25전사자가 아닌 5.18을 유공자를 우대하는 나라를 만드는 법 발의 -(~2/6일) https://pal.assembly.go.kr/attention/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_T2B1E0V1H2F1C1S7X4A2G1O0K8H8C1#a ​ 여러분! 문재인정부가!! 5·18민주유공자를 우대하는 나라로 만드는 법 위에말꼬 또 말 교묘히바꿔 발의 (2월6일까지) http://pal.assembly.go.kr/law/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_T2B1E0V1H2F1C1S7X4A2G1O0K8H8C1​ ​여러분!! 문재인정부가 선거조작 가능한 QR코드를 도입하는 법 발의 (~2/7) https://pal.assembly.go.kr/law/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_D2G1X0J1R2M8D1W3L4Y6X3U4H0N1S3​ 사전투표 CCTV도없는와중에 사전투표기간을 5일전부터 2일 더 늘려서 현 정권에 유리하게 하는 법안 (~2/7 까지 반대) 한마디로 중국인들 알바 쓰겠다 이것임!! http://pal.assembly.go.kr/law/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_A2N1W0M1P2U8W1L4G5C3W2C1Y4V2C5​ ​ 문재인정부가! 재난지원금 준답시고 국채발행해서 원화 휴지조각되고 물가 폭등하는 법안(~2/7) https://pal.assembly.go.kr/law/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_S2H1S0J1S2O2K1X5T2M1U0H9Y7E7T7​ ​문재인정부가! 코로나빌미로 사업장&교회 강제폐쇄법 "또" 발의! 문구 교묘히 바꿔서 !! (~2/7) https://pal.assembly.go.kr/law/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_E2H1F0V1J2I5X1Q7L4T0F0Z2K9R3T9 문재인정부가! 원전은 북에다주고 자연보호걱정하는척 빌미로 국민을 통제하려는 법 발의-(~2/8) https://pal.assembly.go.kr/law/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_J2N0P1J2J1R7X2V2R1K5G1X8P2E0H2 ​코로나 핑계로 국민 일거수일투족 사생활침해 감시하는 악법 - 2월8일마감 https://pal.assembly.go.kr/law/readView.do?lgsltpaId=PRC_J2T1S0A1A2Q1O1C3Y0B4W1B0K2F0L2#a ㅆㅂ 하루 20분씩만 투자해서 좌빨 빨갱이들의 야욕을 분쇄시켜 주자~!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 좌빨 정부에서 언론이나 기레기들이 절대 사용하지 않는 금지된 단어 훠어이훠어이 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11322691919 보수정권에서는 장관 인선때 마다 언론과 기레기들이 끊임 없이 사용하던 단어. 좌빨 정권만 들어서면 사라지는 마법의 단어 - 지역안배 (장관이 전라도 몇 명 배정 되었나가 항상 기사화 됨? 그것도 자극적으로 기사화 함) - 야당과의 대화 (이름만 정의로운 정의당 까지 합세하여 지금 정권에 비하면 정말 조그만 흠집 까지 잡아내서 멱살 잡음. 하지만 이번 정권에서는 어마한 비리에도 침묵으로 일관함) - 야당과의 소통 (장관이 될 만한 인재를 야당과 협의 하라는 이야기인데, 실제는 야당이 원하는 장관을 앉혀라는 말임. 좌빨 기레기들이 끊임없이 기사화 시킴) - 인사참사 (그래도 끝까지 대통령이 임명 하려고 하면 별의별 희안한 시민단체 동원해 기사화 하고 정권에 치명타 입히기 위해 골몰함. 그 잡 시민단체 이번 정권에서는 한번도 안나서고 아주 평화로움) 심지어 보수언론 조차 단 한번도 사용안함. 방통위 까지 좌빨들이 장악해서 목숨이 간당간당하니 쉬쉬~~~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Distinguished American Statesman, 60th US Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Dies at 100 Sunday, February 7, 2021 Hoover Institution, Stanford University Shultz's Hoover Portrait, 2010. Hoover Institution (Stanford, CA) - One of the most consequential policymakers of all time, having served three American presidents, George P. Shultz died Feb. 6 at age 100. Remembered as one of the most influential secretaries of state in our history, Shultz was a key player, alongside President Ronald Reagan, in changing the direction of history by using the tools of diplomacy to bring the Cold War to an end. He knew the value of one’s word, that “trust was the coin of the realm,” and stuck unwaveringly to a set of principles. This, combined with a keen intelligence, enabled him to not only imagine things thought impossible but also to bring them to fruition and forever change the course of human events. 국무장관을 역임했던 조지 슐츠가 100세로 고종명考終命하다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 소셜 미디어(SNS)는 문명의 장애물이다. 배우 로완 앳킨슨: 소셜 미디어에서는 알고리듬이 우리가 보고 싶은 것을 결정하게 되고, 그래서 단순하고 이분법적인 사회를 만들어낸다는 것이다. 우리 편이거나 아니면 적인 것이다. 하나의 의견에만 노출하게 되면 그 결과로 자유로운 토론이 사라지고, 거짓 정보가 횡행하고, 관용은 사라지고, 진보는 멈추게 된다. Social Media Is an Obstacle to Civilization Nicholas Baum On January 5, Variety published an article about an interview between Rowan Atkinson, the actor behind the “Mr. Bean” character, and the British outlet Radio Times. In the midst of the lengthy interview, which saw Atkinson discuss a host of different topics pertaining to his role, a brief and personal opinion was given about the dangers to free discussion and civil discourse that social media may induce: “The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends up creating a simplistic, binary view of society. It becomes a case of either you’re with us or against us. And if you’re against us, you deserve to be ‘canceled.’” As expected, of all the substantive topics that Atkinson would go on to discuss in greater detail, it would be this relatively short dialogue that grasped the attention of many on social media. In fact, the tweet from Variety advertising the article received over a thousand replies. Responses ranged from stating that social media provides a justice-driven “accountability culture,” to people downplaying it as a myth, to some saying that social media profiles are exposed to a wide range of opinions, but that “most of those opinions suck.” The truth, however, is far from the contradicting excuses offered by the masses of Twitter; and the implications of this truth are dangerous to the notion of free speech and the necessity it poses. The Problem with Social Media Firstly, it is true that every social media platform utilizes an algorithm to customize the user’s “feed” with content they enjoy. The problem with this lies in not necessarily that the social media platform may be biased, but that the math employed in every user’s experience delivers solely content they agree with, whether it be the profiles and accounts they follow or the recommended posts that meet the standards of the user’s liking. From the “explore” page of Instagram to the recommended videos on YouTube, the services we’re increasingly using in our daily lives are solely reaffirming our beliefs while actively preventing opposing ones from coming to our attention. By only being exposed to one viewpoint, the effects of free discussion’s absence are evident: the allowance of misinformation, the incentives for intolerance, and the suspension of progress. The Growth of Misinformation By allowing opinions to go uncontested and incontrovertible, being welcomed by a presupposed audience that already agrees with it, there’s no source of pushback that may debunk or at least challenge such a claim. Given that the opinion is received by a group of users already in agreement with it, it’s most likely that such an audience won’t commit to the same intellectual rigor of its certification if it were to be received by a group in disagreement with it. The audience will want to accept it as truth, and do so. Every ideology and school of thought has a means through which the world is viewed and events are judged. The adherence to solely one likely negates important viewpoints in others. If only one is consulted, an almost certainly misleading or downright fallacious opinion is engendered. Without any opposition, this incorrect view persists unchallenged, and as we’ll see later, grows into resentment. In the absence of free exchange and a diversity of thought, flawed and defective opinions may be pushed which are otherwise easily refutable or debunkable by opposing ideologies. As John Stuart Mill writes: “There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.” An opinion is true if it withstands every challenge or refutation made to it. In an online setting where users can limit their audience, block accounts, and protect comment sections, which extends to most platforms, the marketplace of ideas where truth is determined is substituted for the enclosed rally of participants around an opinion treated dogmatically. The Grounds for Intolerance In the absence of the exposure to a given opinion, a resentment of such an opinion or its author may grow. If the only sources consulted and ideas entertained are the ones that are already agreed with, sheer ignorance conflicts with the reality of the opposition. Discussion only amongst those in agreement has an inherent tendency to corrupt. Devoid of any challenge, such opinions held in unanimity will be treated as a dogma, an irrefutable idea whose deviation from is intolerable. This is far more likely to occur than many are willing to recognize. When the people you surround yourself with are all passionately ascertained with a given idea, such an environment necessarily grows a prejudice for those who disagree. Worse yet, the homogenous dialogue of a particular idea may be symptomatic of the first issue, if the ideas of the opposition were to be mistaken by the group. This “straw man,” unable to be corrected, could easily lead to passionate disdain if misinterpreted to a certain extreme. Regardless, if much of one’s daily or online exposure is exclusively to a group of people with a set of common opinions, people without such opinions may be seen as mysterious and threatful, with a lack of subjection to them or their opinions undermining their entitlement to one. This is what Atkinson alludes to when saying, “It becomes a case of either you’re with us or against us. And if you’re against us, you deserve to be ‘canceled.” Social media allows us to surround ourselves with agreement, which further alienates those who disagree. Without anyone representing the opposite opinion to defend themselves, a single point of view is compounded, and as it further summates without any refutation, those who may disagree appear to be much more villainous and impersonal than they likely are. The more passionate or ubiquitous an opinion is, the less likely that those that adhere to their own beliefs and happen to disagree are tolerated. It’s a matter of human nature. The Obstruction of Progress Alongside the free discussion of differing ideas, no matter how popular or unpopular these given ideas may be, the end product is ultimately progress. This is because as different conceptions and opinions are exchanged and debated, it’s more often than not that the truer ones are uncovered. This is similar to the first consequence, in that misinformation grows. Whereas fallacies emerge when only a single idea is preached, the truth emerges when many ideas are debated. This is no accident. Recall that an opinion is true if it withstands every counterargument and refutation; in fact, it’s the only way of certifying its truth. Therefore, the only way to determine what is objectively true in any number of issues is to allow the freedom of discussion and debate in the first place. Furthermore, the “truth” doesn’t have to be some scientific fact or physical observation that we normally associate with the word. In this regard, it more often than not means a “moral truth,” a notion or belief that society rigorously holds on to. Some of the most unpopular opinions of their times would become these moral truths. The notions of classical liberalism; ideals we now think of as necessities such as liberty, equality, and democracy, were considered radical and saw little support for most of mankind’s history. The free market economy, and along with it the principles of voluntary cooperation and free trade, found its roots in the mightily unpopular movements of peasants to cities, ditching the centuries-long order of feudalism. Society progresses when these would-be moral truths are granted the environment to be debated. Over time, unpopular opinions are tested and, if they prove applicable to the state of man or society, and if they withstand every challenge to it, are embraced. If we consider progress as the discovery of truth, then it can only be through the tolerance of many viewpoints and exchange of many ideas that such progress can be obtained. The Threats of Social Media The culture and way of life enabled by social media platforms has come into direct conflict with the principles of free discussion, embarking on a path of dogmatic ideals and misinformed users. Algorithms are coded that effectuate an echo chamber of unfollowed posts and users nevertheless in agreement with the profile, enabling hours in content of further reaffirmation. The user holds the ability to restrict who sees their profile, content, and is allowed to respond to it, creating the aforementioned homogeneous discussions and communities multifariously adorning platforms. Other users can be blocked; blotted out of existence with their content and beliefs, and along with it their access to the blocker’s content and beliefs, restricted from sight, sparring any inconvenience found in viewing such content. What these tools of social media enable is a culture where the user is constantly right and the opposition constantly wrong. Where every tap, click, and like validates what’s already believed in while ostracizing what’s already refuted. It’s a culture of self-affirmation and vindication, of an insulated access to the wide array of intellectual opinions for the sake of the amplification of clung-to beliefs. To the detriment of the occupants of such insulated spaces, those in outspoken disagreement must be careful or else they’ll be “cancelled,” the consequence of negating one of the occupants’ many dogmatic and irrevocable ideals. There’s an unprecedented supply of misinformation; no one is there to refute it. There’s been scarce a time of greater polarization and divisiveness; the direct result of people choosing to expose themselves only to the conveniences found in agreement. Society seems to be regressing, not improving; because opinions go unchallenged, with divisiveness around different truths replacing unity around fundamental beliefs. Although not much can be done to assuage this societal retroversion, the largest impact must come individually. For the sake of the furtherance of truth, tolerance, and progress; have a discussion with that friend or family member you disagree with. Read a post or article about the other side of the issue. Choose to respectfully engage the opposing viewpoint that may be nagging you. Most importantly, use sparingly the many tools social media offers to limit free expression. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------